| Message ID | 1604419306-26105-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys support | expand |
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:42PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > Add support for TEE based trusted keys where TEE provides the functionality > to seal and unseal trusted keys using hardware unique key. Also, this is > an alternative in case platform doesn't possess a TPM device. > > This patch-set has been tested with OP-TEE based early TA which is already > merged in upstream [1]. Is the new RPI400 computer a platform that can be used for testing patch sets like this? I've been looking for a while something ARM64 based with similar convenience as Intel NUC's, and on the surface this new RPI product looks great for kernel testing purposes. /Jarkko > > [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/f86ab8e7e0de869dfa25ca05a37ee070d7e5b86b > > Changes in v8: > 1. Added static calls support instead of indirect calls. > 2. Documented trusted keys source module parameter. > 3. Refined patch #1 commit message discription. > 4. Addressed misc. comments on patch #2. > 5. Added myself as Trusted Keys co-maintainer instead. > 6. Rebased to latest tpmdd master. > > Changes in v7: > 1. Added a trusted.source module parameter in order to enforce user's > choice in case a particular platform posses both TPM and TEE. > 2. Refine commit description for patch #1. > > Changes in v6: > 1. Revert back to dynamic detection of trust source. > 2. Drop author mention from trusted_core.c and trusted_tpm1.c files. > 3. Rebased to latest tpmdd/master. > > Changes in v5: > 1. Drop dynamic detection of trust source and use compile time flags > instead. > 2. Rename trusted_common.c -> trusted_core.c. > 3. Rename callback: cleanup() -> exit(). > 4. Drop "tk" acronym. > 5. Other misc. comments. > 6. Added review tags for patch #3 and #4. > > Changes in v4: > 1. Pushed independent TEE features separately: > - Part of recent TEE PR: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/4/1062 > 2. Updated trusted-encrypted doc with TEE as a new trust source. > 3. Rebased onto latest tpmdd/master. > > Changes in v3: > 1. Update patch #2 to support registration of multiple kernel pages. > 2. Incoporate dependency patch #4 in this patch-set: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11091435/ > > Changes in v2: > 1. Add reviewed-by tags for patch #1 and #2. > 2. Incorporate comments from Jens for patch #3. > 3. Switch to use generic trusted keys framework. > > Sumit Garg (4): > KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework > KEYS: trusted: Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys > doc: trusted-encrypted: updates with TEE as a new trust source > MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Trusted Keys co-maintainer > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 12 + > Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst | 203 +++++++++++-- > MAINTAINERS | 2 + > include/keys/trusted-type.h | 47 +++ > include/keys/trusted_tee.h | 55 ++++ > include/keys/trusted_tpm.h | 17 +- > security/keys/trusted-keys/Makefile | 2 + > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c | 354 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c | 278 +++++++++++++++++ > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm1.c | 336 ++++---------------- > 10 files changed, 979 insertions(+), 327 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 include/keys/trusted_tee.h > create mode 100644 security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > create mode 100644 security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c > > -- > 2.7.4 > >
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 10:37, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:42PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Add support for TEE based trusted keys where TEE provides the functionality > > to seal and unseal trusted keys using hardware unique key. Also, this is > > an alternative in case platform doesn't possess a TPM device. > > > > This patch-set has been tested with OP-TEE based early TA which is already > > merged in upstream [1]. > > Is the new RPI400 computer a platform that can be used for testing > patch sets like this? I've been looking for a while something ARM64 > based with similar convenience as Intel NUC's, and on the surface > this new RPI product looks great for kernel testing purposes. Here [1] is the list of supported versions of Raspberry Pi in OP-TEE. The easiest approach would be to pick up a supported version or else do an OP-TEE port for an unsupported one (which should involve minimal effort). [1] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html#what-versions-of-raspberry-pi-will-work -Sumit > > /Jarkko > > > > > [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/f86ab8e7e0de869dfa25ca05a37ee070d7e5b86b > > > > Changes in v8: > > 1. Added static calls support instead of indirect calls. > > 2. Documented trusted keys source module parameter. > > 3. Refined patch #1 commit message discription. > > 4. Addressed misc. comments on patch #2. > > 5. Added myself as Trusted Keys co-maintainer instead. > > 6. Rebased to latest tpmdd master. > > > > Changes in v7: > > 1. Added a trusted.source module parameter in order to enforce user's > > choice in case a particular platform posses both TPM and TEE. > > 2. Refine commit description for patch #1. > > > > Changes in v6: > > 1. Revert back to dynamic detection of trust source. > > 2. Drop author mention from trusted_core.c and trusted_tpm1.c files. > > 3. Rebased to latest tpmdd/master. > > > > Changes in v5: > > 1. Drop dynamic detection of trust source and use compile time flags > > instead. > > 2. Rename trusted_common.c -> trusted_core.c. > > 3. Rename callback: cleanup() -> exit(). > > 4. Drop "tk" acronym. > > 5. Other misc. comments. > > 6. Added review tags for patch #3 and #4. > > > > Changes in v4: > > 1. Pushed independent TEE features separately: > > - Part of recent TEE PR: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/4/1062 > > 2. Updated trusted-encrypted doc with TEE as a new trust source. > > 3. Rebased onto latest tpmdd/master. > > > > Changes in v3: > > 1. Update patch #2 to support registration of multiple kernel pages. > > 2. Incoporate dependency patch #4 in this patch-set: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11091435/ > > > > Changes in v2: > > 1. Add reviewed-by tags for patch #1 and #2. > > 2. Incorporate comments from Jens for patch #3. > > 3. Switch to use generic trusted keys framework. > > > > Sumit Garg (4): > > KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework > > KEYS: trusted: Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys > > doc: trusted-encrypted: updates with TEE as a new trust source > > MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Trusted Keys co-maintainer > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 12 + > > Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst | 203 +++++++++++-- > > MAINTAINERS | 2 + > > include/keys/trusted-type.h | 47 +++ > > include/keys/trusted_tee.h | 55 ++++ > > include/keys/trusted_tpm.h | 17 +- > > security/keys/trusted-keys/Makefile | 2 + > > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c | 354 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c | 278 +++++++++++++++++ > > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm1.c | 336 ++++---------------- > > 10 files changed, 979 insertions(+), 327 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 include/keys/trusted_tee.h > > create mode 100644 security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > > create mode 100644 security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > >
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 03:02:41PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 10:37, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:42PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > Add support for TEE based trusted keys where TEE provides the functionality > > > to seal and unseal trusted keys using hardware unique key. Also, this is > > > an alternative in case platform doesn't possess a TPM device. > > > > > > This patch-set has been tested with OP-TEE based early TA which is already > > > merged in upstream [1]. > > > > Is the new RPI400 computer a platform that can be used for testing > > patch sets like this? I've been looking for a while something ARM64 > > based with similar convenience as Intel NUC's, and on the surface > > this new RPI product looks great for kernel testing purposes. > > Here [1] is the list of supported versions of Raspberry Pi in OP-TEE. > The easiest approach would be to pick up a supported version or else > do an OP-TEE port for an unsupported one (which should involve minimal > effort). > > [1] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html#what-versions-of-raspberry-pi-will-work > > -Sumit If porting is doable, then I'll just order RPI 400, and test with QEMU up until either I port OP-TEE myself or someone else does it. For seldom ARM testing, RPI 400 is really convenient device with its boxed form factor. /Jarkko
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:52:52PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 03:02:41PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 10:37, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:42PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > Add support for TEE based trusted keys where TEE provides the functionality > > > > to seal and unseal trusted keys using hardware unique key. Also, this is > > > > an alternative in case platform doesn't possess a TPM device. > > > > > > > > This patch-set has been tested with OP-TEE based early TA which is already > > > > merged in upstream [1]. > > > > > > Is the new RPI400 computer a platform that can be used for testing > > > patch sets like this? I've been looking for a while something ARM64 > > > based with similar convenience as Intel NUC's, and on the surface > > > this new RPI product looks great for kernel testing purposes. > > > > Here [1] is the list of supported versions of Raspberry Pi in OP-TEE. > > The easiest approach would be to pick up a supported version or else > > do an OP-TEE port for an unsupported one (which should involve minimal > > effort). > > > > [1] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html#what-versions-of-raspberry-pi-will-work > > > > -Sumit > > If porting is doable, then I'll just order RPI 400, and test with QEMU > up until either I port OP-TEE myself or someone else does it. > > For seldom ARM testing, RPI 400 is really convenient device with its > boxed form factor. I'm now a proud owner of Raspberry Pi 400 home computer :-) I also found instructions on how to boot a custom OS from a USB stick: https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/bootmodes/msd.md Also, my favorite build system BuildRoot has bunch of of the shelf configs: ➜ buildroot-sgx (master) ✔ ls -1 configs | grep raspberry raspberrypi0_defconfig raspberrypi0w_defconfig raspberrypi2_defconfig raspberrypi3_64_defconfig raspberrypi3_defconfig raspberrypi3_qt5we_defconfig raspberrypi4_64_defconfig raspberrypi4_defconfig raspberrypi_defconfig I.e. I'm capable of compiling kernel and user space and boot it up with it. Further, I can select this compilation option: BR2_TARGET_OPTEE_OS: │ │ OP-TEE OS provides the secure world boot image and the trust │ application development kit of the OP-TEE project. OP-TEE OS │ also provides generic trusted application one can embedded │ into its system. │ │ http://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os Is that what I want? If I put this all together and apply your patches, should the expectation be that I can use trusted keys? Please note that I had a few remarks about your patches (minor but need to be fixed), but this version is already solid enough for testing. /Jarkko
Hi Jarkko, Apologies for the delay in my response as I was busy with other high priority work. On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 10:46, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:52:52PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 03:02:41PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 10:37, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:42PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > Add support for TEE based trusted keys where TEE provides the functionality > > > > > to seal and unseal trusted keys using hardware unique key. Also, this is > > > > > an alternative in case platform doesn't possess a TPM device. > > > > > > > > > > This patch-set has been tested with OP-TEE based early TA which is already > > > > > merged in upstream [1]. > > > > > > > > Is the new RPI400 computer a platform that can be used for testing > > > > patch sets like this? I've been looking for a while something ARM64 > > > > based with similar convenience as Intel NUC's, and on the surface > > > > this new RPI product looks great for kernel testing purposes. > > > > > > Here [1] is the list of supported versions of Raspberry Pi in OP-TEE. > > > The easiest approach would be to pick up a supported version or else > > > do an OP-TEE port for an unsupported one (which should involve minimal > > > effort). > > > > > > [1] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html#what-versions-of-raspberry-pi-will-work > > > > > > -Sumit > > > > If porting is doable, then I'll just order RPI 400, and test with QEMU > > up until either I port OP-TEE myself or someone else does it. > > > > For seldom ARM testing, RPI 400 is really convenient device with its > > boxed form factor. > > I'm now a proud owner of Raspberry Pi 400 home computer :-) > > I also found instructions on how to boot a custom OS from a USB stick: > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/bootmodes/msd.md > > Also, my favorite build system BuildRoot has bunch of of the shelf > configs: > > ➜ buildroot-sgx (master) ✔ ls -1 configs | grep raspberry > raspberrypi0_defconfig > raspberrypi0w_defconfig > raspberrypi2_defconfig > raspberrypi3_64_defconfig > raspberrypi3_defconfig > raspberrypi3_qt5we_defconfig > raspberrypi4_64_defconfig > raspberrypi4_defconfig > raspberrypi_defconfig > > I.e. I'm capable of compiling kernel and user space and boot it up > with it. > > Further, I can select this compilation option: > > BR2_TARGET_OPTEE_OS: │ > │ > OP-TEE OS provides the secure world boot image and the trust │ > application development kit of the OP-TEE project. OP-TEE OS │ > also provides generic trusted application one can embedded │ > into its system. │ > │ > http://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os > > Is that what I want? If I put this all together and apply your patches, > should the expectation be that I can use trusted keys? > Firstly you need to do an OP-TEE port for RPI 400 (refer here [1] for guidelines). And then in order to boot up OP-TEE on RPI 400, you can refer to Raspberry Pi 3 build instructions [2]. [1] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architecture/porting_guidelines.html [2] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html#build-instructions > Please note that I had a few remarks about your patches (minor but need > to be fixed), but this version is already solid enough for testing. > Sure, I will incorporate your remarks and Randy's documentation comments in the next version. -Sumit > /Jarkko